While the L A Times is busy hyping Governor Brown’s success in extending its expensive and bureaucratically onerous cap and tax law from 2020 to 2030 Bjorn Lomborg director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center has an article in the Times showing how California’s climate alarmist schemes are incredibly wrong.
However Lomborg clearly articulates the irrelevancy that California’s go it alone approach produces.
Further Lomborg exposes the terrible costs that Californian’s will pay now and in the coming years while failing to achieve any worthwhile global benefits. Meanwhile the Times celebrate’s Governor Brown’s political savvy in being able to foist such a costly and worthless scheme upon the people of California.
Lomborg believes that California’s climate alarmist scheme’s driven by Governor Brown are misguided and that the state should instead take a more realistic and productive approach to address its climate concerns.
“California is embracing huge costs while doing virtually nothing for the environment. While the approach might look good, it doesn’t help much. If, instead, California were to develop green technologies so cheap they could actually outcompete fossil fuels, the whole world would switch to them.”
Original Story at LA Times here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps Griff can help me locate wind and solar on this global energy use graphic?
By 2040, those “other renewables” will double or even triple!!! Just you watch. By 2040, wind and solar will be up to 3-5%… Right up there with EV’s… /Sarc
Even this meagre amount is probably dubious. Is this nameplate supply or actual? And I doubt it doesn’t show how poorly the supply matches the demand> Atrocious for wind and solar!
Pretty slick double negative there, eh? Not sure what exactly I didn’t doubt not happening are you?
That’s deceptive because it is all global energy use, showing heat and transport as well as electricity.
do it again for electricity only and then show the electricity graph for Spain, UK and Germany.
Different picture.
Energy use is exactly that, energy used globally. Spinning it to your preferred iteration is the actual deception. There is zero chance that wind and solar can replace the demanded energy globally. You could try to cover the entire planet with solar panels and wind farms. You can bet that anthropogenic forcing would indeed change the climate.
I do find it interesting that you cannot make wind and solar energy producing products exclusively with wind and solar energy. Think about that for a minute……
“…I do find it interesting that you cannot make wind and solar energy producing products exclusively with wind and solar energy. Think about that for a minute……” But, but, but they told me it was sustainable!
Progressive politics are making California the laughing stock of America. They have captured the majority just by fooling Los Angeles and San Fransisco into believing the Marxist plan. It won’t end when Brown leaves as it’s endemic.
Griff really loves it when poor folk pay for rich people’s things, solar, electric vehicles.
In the UK government also pays for poor people to have the same things as the rich.
On council estates – which is I guess public housing to US folk – you can tell the houses still council owned, not sold off to occupiers, because they are the ones with the solar panels…
“Griff July 22, 2017 at 1:09 am”
Evidence.
Which wont work when we enter the approaching Solar Grand Minimum:
http://www.solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2413/global-cooling-forecast-basics-astrometeorology
John Doran.
In the UK they put poor people in tower blocks with zero solar panels, but plenty of inflammable insulating panels: Grenfell Towers.
John Doran.
“In the UK government also pays for poor people to have the same things as the rich.”
More outright lies.
Ever heard of food banks**, Griff?
The scandal of Britain’s fuel poverty deaths
Thousands of people die each winter in the UK as a result of being unable to heat their homes. Are we doing enough to help them?
The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/29/uk-fuel-poverty-last-lifetime-national-energy-action-report
Admittedly from 2013, but things have not improved since, in fact the government has cut the cold weather payments to the sick and elderly, and the percentage of energy bills due to “Green” surcharges has increased substantially.
But hey, that’s OK by Griff and his pretentious, patronising, odious, misanthropic ilk, they’ve got a planet to save, so a few tens of thousands of weak, the poor, the sick and the elderly dying of a combination of illness, malnutrition and cold doesn’t matter a flying dog’s gonad to the likes of him.
Especially when he’s getting paid for it, of course…
** “Since, I think 2010, the number of people relying on food banks has gone up from the tens of thousands to the millions.”
BBC Question Time audience member, 27 April 2017
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-many-people-use-food-banks/
Yes catweazle, we have a terrible govt.
But I’m pointing out that public housing can and does provide for solar panels and low cost renewable energy for the poorer people in UK society: the argument I am replying to being (I summarise) ‘only rich people can have solar and the poor can’t afford it’. Which is not the case.
The year without an Arctic Summer: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/the-year-without-an-arctic-summer/ And never mind the ongoing Summer Skiing season in Californian Ski resorts. Wonder if the snow pack makes it into the upcoming winter. The liars claimed that snow would be a thing of the past remember.
The sea ice is still melting back though.
On a tragic-comedy side note, the wind was blowing too hard for wind turbines two days ago in central Kansas.
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/07/20/wind-turbine-catches-fire-in-lincoln-county/
Now we’ve all heard the wind industry paid for myth that the payout on a windfarm is 8 months, but anyone can simply look at an individual wind farm and calculate its EPBT. For this windfarm, which cost $450,000,000 to build, has a nameplate capacity of 249 MW and efficiency of around 29%, with a regional electricity cost of $0.12/kWh, the payback time is 5.9 years. That doesn’t even consider maintenance costs, including two fires already costing $2,000,000 (2.6 years worth of electricity for a single turbine). No wonder huge wind energy subsidies continue.
ossqss: There must be some confusion on the definition of renewables. BP’s world energy report shows renewables (wind, solar and biomass) at 2.4%. You have a massive 13.8%. Can somebody clear this one up?
Passing a law that requires a reduction of GHG emissions by 40 percent in 2030 in California is a patently insane effort by California to attempt to modify the effects of the Solar System on California’s long-term climate. All relevant scientific information was ignored, which would indicate this action was taken by legislators who are either scientifically illiterate or hope to reap financial benefits from solar panel and windmill interests or both. One could argue that all those legislators who voted for the law should be removed from office for malfeasance. They should be judged guilty of acting in a way that is demonstrably harmful to the public and a violation of the public trust.
You can run (in California) but you can’t hide. And even if you do make it across the border voting with your feet, they will still find you the next time they control the White House with all the puppet strings re-attached and policies copied into federal law. It’s only a matter of time. Live it up now, but row well and live 41.
From the LATimes article:
“Even if California succeeds in making the new cuts and sticks to them for the rest of the century, according to calculations using a standard model of the U.N. Climate Panel, they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit“
“they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit“
Can it get any more ridiculous?! California wants to turn their whole economy upside down in an effort to reduce global temps by 0.008F, and ALL their efforts will be negated by China and India building a few more coal-fired power plants. So what’s the point Governor Brown?
So when does California start writing checks to the Green Climate Fund, also part of the Paris Accord?
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect caused by gases with LWIR absorption bands but such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. The AGW conjecture is science fiction. Hence the action that the state of California is taking will have no effect on climate.
Are you taking into account the latest RSS figures for the upper atmosphere which show the same warming as surface temps?
Evidence pls Griff.
Griff
Yes you’re right – the RSS “satellite” data has indeed been changed to simply mirror the surface temperature datasets.
It’s also amazingly economical – satellite data in which you don’t even need a satellite.
Gov. Moonbeam against bully fart
http://www.jesus-our-blessed-hope.com/uploads/8/7/5/0/87500100/9-21-16-ca-gov-brown-cow-gas_orig.png
Perhaps he could pass legislation to end the California Pandemic of Mexican Restaurants and Taquerias. They are certainly a vast source of human flatus
This argument:
…
…
Is by all due respect not a very good one for doing nothing.
Imagine just for a second that we had a very dangerous problem that definitely should be dealt with by all countries.
Using this argument that “If X cut all emissions it won’t matter at all because they are so small compared to the rest of the world”.
Since X can be replaced by any sufficient small region in the world, it means that nothing should be done anywhere.
China can use the same argument by simply analyzing each province separately. “Since Yunnan only constitutes a minuscule part of the world’s emissions it is meaningless to do anything at all there. The same goes for all provinces in China as well as all states in the US and EU and everywhere.
/Jan
This argument:
…
…
Is by all due respect not a very good one.
Imagine just for a second that we had a very dangerous problem that definitely should be dealt with by all countries.
Using this argument that “If X cut all emissions it won’t matter at all because they are so small compared to the rest of the world”.
Since X can be replaced by any sufficient small region in the world it means that nothing should be done anywhere.
China can use the same argument by simply analyzing each province separately. “Since Yunnan only constitutes a minuscule part of the world’s emissions it is meaningless to do anything at all there. The same goes for all provinces in China as well as all states in the US and EU and everywhere.
/Jan
Judging by the mask of rage permanently fixed on governor Brown’s face I would say he has serious psychological issues of rage and psychopathy. Folks like him brainwashed into the “climate to kill us all” cult-meme probably find it impossible to look at the sun, the sky, clouds or the sea without seeing a mortal enemy busy scheming against them. They become permanently enraged by the simple existence of the natural world. Thus their thrashing rage response to the simple mention of the word “natural” in any discussion of climate change. A whole generation afflicted by this dangerous psychopathic neurosis is a threat to our future way beyond anything the climate itself could present.
Clearly “Griff” is paid, and benefits from the green blob. Most people have to work, and I mean real work.
Are we really to believe that renewables don’t make electricity more expensive?
I just visited Australia on business. I saw this letter in the Australian (a newspaper) on Monday July 17, 2017:
“Life in a cold climate.
Mornings have been bitterly cold lately. Intrigued by her silence, I checked on my wife on Saturday to see if she was alright. I found her sitting in her office, her head covered to the eyebrows by the hood of a thick jumper. I immediately felt ashamed, sad and angry.
With the price of electricity going through the roof, little essentials that were making our lives comfortable in our old age have been turned off, starting with the heater.
What’s happening? Instead of providing us with cheap and reliable energy, governments are presiding over the sale of our gas to nations that provide their people with cheap and reliable electricity.
We now turn off all lights, my wife spends her evenings reading under a heavy blanket and I watch the Tour de France in the dark, rugged up in an old sleeping bag. As I ponder on our predicament, I recall that in the 1970’s when I migrated here, all I could hear was that I had arrived in the lucky country. But we don’t say that anymore. Bitterness has replaced happiness, shame has replaced pride, sadness has replaced joy. My wife is cold. I am cold.”
Jean-Pierre Zajac, Uhima Beach, NSW.
An interesting recent article in the Economist about the unusually high electricity prices in Germany (link below). “Power to the people (at a price)”. The following discussion is also informative:
http://www.economist.com/node/13527440
Griff,
Many of the respondents on this website are highly experienced professional’s in the energy field and if you are serious about opening a sincere discussion you would do well to take note and be a little more circumspect. Lose your knee-jerk regurgitation of vested interest propaganda rubbish, it impresses nobody.
If you don’t change your behaviour you just confirm to all here that you are simply a vacuous mouthpiece with questionable tenets.
Take it from one of those highly experienced professionals, Mike: Griffie knows less than nothing about electric power systems and constantly regurgitates misinformation. If Griffie says it, you know it is wrong.
And they seem not to be taking any notice whatever of new information which contradicts their entrenched opinions.
I notice you and they don’t trouble for the most part to put up opposing evidence, just post stuff like the above.
Meanwhile California’s homeless population is exploding. Places in Oakland have become seemingly permanent encampments for the homeless. Block upon block of tents and mounds of garbage. Go to any major city in the state you’ll find the same. The problem extends to everywhere and it is endemic.
It used to be alcoholics, drug users and the mentally ill. They’ve been joined by healthy 20-30 year olds who have found that living on the street is more doable than having a home.
I’ve been here all my life. This is getting bad and the state continues to squeeze dollars out of whoever they can.
It is untenable. I have a prediction of my own. This state is headed for a major social and financial meltdown.
California is handling pretty much every thing all wrong.
I found the article by Bjorn Lomborg interesting in the mathematical sense.
CA represents less than 1% of global emissions. Let’s assume 1%. (I have found it to be 0.9915%).
CA plans to cut emissions by 40%.
That will result in a 0.0044C drop in temperature.
Cost is $13-22.5 billion per year.
Cost when factoring in GDP loss is about $50 billion per year.
So, what if every country did what CA planned to do, namely cut emissions 40% while losing $50 billion of their GDP? Surely, we would stop warming above 2C which is identified as that dangerous tipping point.
Mathematically, to get there, we just assume CA produced 100% of global emissions. Then, if all countries cut by 40%, that would result in a 0.44C drop in temperature. This is no where near 2C. It is less than a fourth of a way there.
Cost is 1.3-2.25 trillion PER YEAR for all nations.
Cost when considering in Global GDP loss is about $5 trillion PER YEAR for a total reduction in temperature of 0.44C. We would still hit the 2C warming tipping point, just a ~25% later despite wasting $5 trillion PER YEAR.
Problem for CA is not all countries have committed to a 40% reduction. In fact, several countries have committed to only reducing emissions after 2030, when CA would undoubtedly be bankrupt.
If Trump did not pull out of Paris Accord, the US would undoubtedly be bankrupt too. All the power to you CA for going down this wasteful path…..
Don’t worry ! In my country, NORWAY, the temperature in older Stone Age was above the dangereos temperature level set by UN Climate … In the mountains there were trees and plants which now have collapsed because the present climate is to coold ! The sea level rose to 90 meters higher and the stone age people had no politcians or journalists to save Thea either